Jumped or pushed? Another self-hating homosexual homophobe. Why not six months ago before the General Election? And why is he suitable as a representative of the people? Let’s have a bi-election (no pun intended).

Months before the election we were promised by the Tories that there would be dozens of gay Tory candidates. There weren’t, of course. But now, it seems, they are beginning to emerge as the sad self-hating Tory sickos that they are!

Sorry, still don’t understand how a gay mp can vote or be negative against LGBT issues when she or he is gay. Even more I can’t understand why a LGBT gay charity would do so as well. So if a gay charity isn’t whiter than white on all LGBT issues then I guess he has to be tolerated for not voting in the correct way for a gay person….

I guess those who may have been affected by his neg votes, if they actually had counted, thankfully don’t have to “come to terms” with the consequences….

I’d prefer if he wasn’t so dramatic, was more proud of being gay and said he was now going to do something pos about LGBT issues. At least that American ex gay politician is!

I do hate this wet fart comments about how hard it is to be gay and be a MP – I thought politics was supposed to be a rough and tough business….

Jon @ 18:36 is talking total rubbish. The Conservatives had more openly gay candidates than the other parties. And they now have a record number of gay MPs (more than Labour and Lib Dems combined!). In this particular case, it’s bizarre that he voted against equality. He ought to aplogise at the very least and make a donation to an LGBT charity. That said, let’s not rush to make comment; let him come to term with things.

Sad and begrudging self acceptance of who he is. The separation is a ‘consequence’ – family possibly not very supportive? Who knows. At some point he does owe us / his contituents an explanation of his voting record.

I have blue eyes but I am slowly coming to terms with it.
I’ve been like that for almost 68 years…(sighs…)

What a load of bleedin’ tosh.

Mr. Crispin Blunt, sir, with your name so redolent of famous homos of the past, one Quentin and one Anthony, tell the world of your proclivities and at the same time tell it that if it doesn’t like it it can go run.
Tell that to the whole House of Commons/Lords and the pope in Rome.
Just tell them, “It is MY life; get ckuffed.!”

Can we please get AWAY from all this bleating and announcing to the press and tears and self-recrimination and begging for forgiveness from daft old queens in pointy hats from another century who are as camp as ckuffing Xmas their bleedin’selves…!

I’m a bit stuck as to what to think about this. He was in the army until 1990 so obviously had to keep his sexuality secret there. He then decided to stand for Parliament as a Tory, again a no go area for gay people, certainly back in the 90s. What troubles me is how much he knew about his sexuality back then and the timing of him getting married.

His first go at Parliament was as a sacrifical lamb in West Bromwich East in 1992. Did he marry in order to keep his sexuality hidden so that he could make himself attractive to Tory constituency parties with the Tory wife and 2.4 children?

He was also first elected back in 1997 when Ben Bradshaw and Stephen Twigg were both elected in seats previously held by Tories and both were openly gay. So it’s not like it was impossible to be gay and an MP even back then.

So as I say, I don’t know what to think or why he’s decided to split with his wife now or why it took him 13 years from his first election to do so. I also feel sorry for his wife who must feel used whether she was or not.

What a pathetic excuse for a man. Voting against gay rights and all the time kicking his legs his height at every available opportunity. He should have been a catholic priest. He’ll be in good company when the pope visits Westminster next month.

Self-hatred, self-loathing that is not necessarily so a dislike or hatred of a group to which one belongs? does not apply to homosexuality. For example if he dislikes you it doesn’t mean he dislikes himself. The majority of gay people are constantly going on about how they dislike the gay scene and lifestyle.

The only unpleasant thing about this story is the man’s poor wife. I hope she has a really good time and finds somebody more worthwhile.

I don’t know what 50-year-olds are supposed to look like but he looks like a 60-year-old doesn’t he?

My goodness, stories like this certainly brings the bitchy-bile queens scuttling out from under their stones! Give this guy a break -you now nothing about his path to coming to terms with his sexuality so stop revelling in another’s angst – the venom of schadenfreude just makes you sound so ugly.

Yes understood and agreed but I wish, 50 years ago, I had known then what I know now (Don’t we all..!)

For a start, I would have told the Catholic Church to go and piss itself.

What, in 2010, is the need to go crying and pleading and being sorry for your homosexuality and holding press conferences and bleating about it.?

That all belongs to when I was a lad and before.

It is ckuffing IRRELEVANT today.

At the risk of repeating myself, I was told, by a priest, as a young man that I was “sick and need treatment; here is the address of a doctor (electro-therapist) in Liverpool who specialises in this dreadful illness (homosexuality)..”

Were I stupid enough now to go to confession and wish to be received back into the Roman Catholic Cesspit and were a priest to tell me that today, I would spit in his silly trap especially since I have never had either of my hands up a little girl’s dress or down a little boy’s pants.

It has to be 6′ 6″ and ripped to anywhere near switch me on.
And they…tell ME….that I….am “intrinsically morally disordered..”..???

Up your arses with a flu’ brush, pointy hats.

So to get back to Mr. Crispin Blunt.

All that which I experienced, the kow-towing, the crying about my homosexuality 50 years ago is all pointless in 2010.

Why should this poor man have to feel so pressured to put himself thro’ all this?

Why should he feel, after 20 years of marriage, that it is now over?

Just because he finds he is a bit pink?

Isn’t everybody?

Isn’t he the same man who loved his woman and had 2 children by her?

So what’s changed?

Can’t he/we/anybody just say, “I love you as I have always loved you and we have 2 beautiful children to prove it, but inside me, something I cannot ecxplain, is moving..”

Wold he be the first?

Will he be the last.

Mr. Blunt; to those who would give you a problem, to those who would give you what is essentially THEIR problem, just say, “Bugger off!”

Interesting to compare the reception that Gareth Thomas received when he came out in similar circs i.e. he got married and was in denial for as he put it “the best part of 25 years” and frequented bars in Soho when rugbying in London… Comments forums were awash with sympathy and support for his struggle and coming to terms…gay men everywhere related similar tales of denial, pressure to conform, get married, decry homosexuality, etc… No such understanding for Mr Blunt it seems. Being a Tory entitles everyone to despise him I suppose.

Rehan – very true and that IS the only difference. But all closeted men express homophobia in some way or another and that in itself is damaging to other gay people and arguably therefore, inhibits progress. GT still made a display of his homophobia; fortunately he was not in a position to vote on political matters unlike Blunt. But he beat up the odd person who suggested he was gay and did a very good impersonation of a macho straight man, with everything that that entails, including the small matter of lying to his wife, much like Mr Blunt has done. Pretty self loathing. But none of this figured in any of the gushing comments on pages such as this. Let’s face it, being a strapping 6’3″ musclebound hunk, might have had something to do with it.

Yes, but we aren’t all MPs are we, we don’t all have the power to say yes or no on important laws affecting gay people. We don’t all have the power to stand up in parliamnet and ask for eg marriage equality… It’s important that these guys do come out and start saying it is ok to be gay, it is ok and fair to have marriage equality etc otherwise they are saying that their fellow MPs are not OK, that they shouldn’t have the same rights as them. I thought that was one of Stonewall’s main objectives to get “role” models … I’m glad he has come out, I’ll even forgive him for voting against LGBT rights but I really would like him now to stand up for LGBT rights and make amends..

Any guess who the next closet gay mp is mentioned in the new PN artilce is , there was an interesting article in the telegraph, I can only think it is to do with this? Why don’t they just say what they are referring to rather than this cloak and dagger sitution…

Being gay is not a sickness and shouldn’t have to made a headline news items like this – it’s sickening that these guys have to keep on pretending in 2010… I wonder sometimes if we have ever moved on!!

“Tony Collinson, the former association chairman, who was on the selection panel when Mr Blunt was first chosen for the seat in 1997, said he would never have been picked if the truth had been known at the time.” Telegraph.

I think this says a lot. With a contituncy like Riegate the guy had little chioce other than to throw homophobic ‘red meat’ to the baying blue rinse attack dogs. Damned either way. Doesn’t excuse his behaviour but in the dark hole that is Surrey you couldn’t expect anything else.

Hmmmm…Call me an old cynic but this has the hallmarks of a reluctant revelation from someone with a view to pre-empt a threatened exposure by a third party (not necessarily a ‘correspondent’ in the sense implied by Blunt).
We’ll have to watch this space to see if he now starts to act more positively on lgbt issues. It’s an ill wind…

I keep remembering that comment artilce by someone in PN (sorry can’t remember who it was) after the laws affair when he/she said that laws was different to those sleazy mps in VIP lounges with pretty young things and also those mps who had a bit too much to drink and boasted about their gay sexual exploits (I think that was the gist of it anyway!)

With guys like this , voting against LGBT laws etc, and being gay himself ,with as yet no apology on his gay voting record, then I hope that these other guys in VIPs lounges and clicky dinner parties will be exposed….I’m assuming these guys are as yet still in the closet and haven’t been outed or voluntarily outed yet within the “westminister village” and click media they are well known…

I also think that given Stonewall’s persistance in getting role models for all of us (isn’t it one of their main 2009/2010 priorties – perhaps I got that one wrong???) it is also fairly unacceptable for even “nice” closet gay mps to continue to remain in the closet…They’re really are an insult to gay people and do nothing to promote LGBT acceptabilty/issues, at least I feel that way….

@ Kae (#31): I hear what you say and generally agree, but there’s one other difference from Gareth Thomas – Thomas was the first in his field (field!) to come out, no-one can say that there wasn’t a precedent for a politician to come out. (OK, so Blunt’s a Tory and married which muddies the waters a bit, but you get my drift I hope.)

“So should ministers have the right to keep their sexuality secret? Or are there valid security reasons requiring politicians in sensitive posts to be completely open about their private lives? Channel 4 News spoke to
Ben Summerskill – chief executive of Stonewall – and a former government equality commissioner.

“Categorically people do have a right to keep it secret,” said Mr Summerskill.

”

and so on he goes….

I wonder whether Channel 4 would like to ask him whether gay people have the right to get married? Categorically yes or no or perhpas only if you are an important mp and then perhpas yes you should be able to!!!

I have no sympathy for Mr Blunt and very little for Gareth Roberts either. Just like all men they are more then happy to use women as domestic servants, brood mares and a source of support for their egos, careers etc. And as soon as the female thing is no longer any use to them, then bye bye Mrs.

Gay and straight guys – the only difference in their misogyny is the sort of body they fantasise about when w&nking into one.

I’m sure that if this man has hidden his sexuality in order to further his career that the only reason he has come out now will be because of blackmail or some looming scandal.
I don’t believe he would have subjected himself to this level of attention without some reason.
Having recently left my family for a beautiful Polish man I can say I left for love and staying would have been impossible. As yet we have no news of any other party.
I feel that at the very least we haven’t heard the whole story, or the hole story, hehe.

But comment 58 (think) , it works both ways… my cousin (female) left her husbad for a woman……He was terribly upset but she was very happy! As for the kids they just had to get used to it…We haven’t seen any female “straight” MPs come out yet, that’s all, doesn’t mean there aren’t any closet ones who haven’t sold themselves in the last election as the ideal married wife MP package with a fantastic husband and 2 perfect children!

John, It works both ways only in the sense that people of whatever sexuality may once have love and respect but then do grow apart on a personal level.

What is not a two way street is the millenia old tradition of women as male property (marriage), marriages based on exploitation, servitude and the male sense of entitlement to female time, energy, loyalty – think about what a fuss men make if the women ever dares to “fail” to match his demands.

What we have here, as so often, is 30 years of exploitation. Where was the respect ever in this relationship ? Where is the respect for women from men in general anyway ? That is the problem.

‘Think’ – (perhaps you should do a little more) these are crude and silly generalisations. Gay men can be just as misogynist as straights, sure – but it is obvious that their reasons for getting married are often starkly different – a desperate need to appear heterosexual, deny who they are including to themselves, and thus be socially acceptable. Straight men are usually just going with the cultural flow.

Come now, ‘think’ #61: aren’t you making some assumptions here? We – or at least I – know nothing about Mrs Blunt. She may well have gone into this marriage with her eyes open. At all events, I seriously doubt she was forced into marrying him. Sure, if all this has come as a surprise to her, it won’t be pleasant – but she may well have more of a say than you give her credit for.

Yeah, isn’t the internet a wonderful and yet dangerous thing, you only have type in cabinet mininster and gay on google for the last 24 hrs and its amazing what people say in blogs etc, this article was thrown up in the last 24 hrs from an old article way back in 1997. What a crazy world the internet is…don’t know what’s true or what’s not true any more!

think – I think you’ve got a good argument for giving marriage to same sex partners and giving CPs to mixed sex couples – taking your argument there is only an ownersip problem with men over women – See gays are so much more suited to marriage!!

what a wonderfully diverse and dynamic spectrum sexuality is … little boxes are for ticky tacky but not for people – stories like this are great as it questions family structure – it aint as it all seems

“”So should ministers have the right to keep their sexuality secret? Or are there valid security reasons requiring politicians in sensitive posts to be completely open about their private lives? Channel 4 News spoke to
Ben Summerskill – chief executive of Stonewall – and a former government equality commissioner.

“Categorically people do have a right to keep it secret,” said Mr Summerskill. “”

Summerskill is a homophobic bag of hot air. Considering he does not support legal equality for LGBT people, everything he says should be viewed with deep suspicion.

There is no reason to allow a politician who votes against the gay community (while being gay him (or her) self remain in the closet.

That is the golden rule of outing. It is acceptable to out a homophobe who is damaging the lives of other LGBT people because they are so desperately and pathetically trying to hide their own sexuality.

I have no idea whether the rumours about William Hague are true.

If they ARE true, and they can be proved, then his record of homophobic voting means he should be outed immediately.

If they haven’t done anything crocked then outing doesn’t mean the sack anymore, it seems that all these MPs who have been outed or come out seem positively relieved …..

From a gay person’s point of view I agree if someone has had a bad record on LGBT rights and is gay and people know about this then they should be outed ….From a gay person’s point of view ,the more gay mps there are, then the more likely we are going to have more changes and more rights…

From a non gay prospective then probably Summerskill’s attitude towrds gay mps not coming out may be right, after all we don’t expect straight mps to shout about their straightness so why should gay ones, no-one is interested in their straightness , they aren’t a minority group, after all their rights are already catered for all around the world, they don’t need more role models , they don’t suffer discirmination becuase of their sexuality….

Having closet gays mps (good or bad) from a gay person’s perspective is a waste of time…

We are talking about MPs ie the people who represent us, the people who initiate laws and pass them on our behalf… I don’t really care about joe blogs or mr crap voice who is gay….

“From a non gay prospective then probably Summerskill’s attitude towrds gay mps not coming out may be right”

You’ve nailed the problem with Stonewall on the head there.

They are a so-called gay rights organisation that operates entirely based on what they think will keep their heterosexual masters happy.

However in their dealings with those in power they pretend that they represent LGB people, when in actual fact they couldn’t care less about gay people. Notice how they refuse point blank to support legal equality for LGBT people in terms of marriage rights, despite the OVERWHELMING majority of LGBT people being in favour of it (and then they sink to truly pathetic levels by getting their employees to post anonymously on here and other forums to give a fake impression that there is actually a segment of our population which supports their homophobia).

Tracherous Uncle Tom’s is how Stonewall should be categorised. A bit like Crispin Blunt in fact.

It’s t ime to start naming names.

I remember prior to the election it was revealed that about 15 parliamentary candidates from the Tory Party are gay. But about half were still closeted.

I think Pink News (if they know who these people are) should have a look at their voting records in terms of LGBT rights and in case they have not been fully supportive, then it is completely in the public interest to ask them how they could vote against the right of other sgay people, given that they themselves are gay.

This w@nker Blunt did not deserve the dignity of coming out when he felt comfortable in doing so.

His disgracefully bigotted and homophobic hypocrisy should have been revealed years ago.

And he has not even had the decency to apologise for his duplicitous bigotry yet!

Yes, Crispin Blunt probably was self-hating. And he may still be. Whilst refusing to acknowledge his sexuality, he will have voted against gay rights measures.

In mitigation, he was not vocal in his opposition, did not publicly try to turn people against gay-rights and he was in a personal hard-place.

I prefer generously to offer support rather than criticism in the hope that with support expressed publicly or in private correspondence, he will realise the error his previous actions and try to make amends.

No 75: DeVilliers: you say “In mitigation, he was not vocal in his opposition, did not publicly try to turn people against gay-rights and he was in a personal hard-place.”

Rubbish.

He equaled homosexuality with paedophilia.

Some of his more viciously bigotted comments include:

1. When he was opposing an equal age of consent he stated in Parliament : “It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.”

Another choice comment he made when opposing an equal age of consent was “While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people’s choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality – nor should we pretend that they are.”

When he was opposing allowing gay people in the military he stated: “The intangible that is military ethos has been progressively undermined. Letting overt gays in is another stage in this process.”

That sounds like vicious, toxic homoophobia to me.

He has NOT apologised.

In order for him to be taken seriously he needs to issue an unreserved and immediate apology for his toxic bigotry.

He must not be allowed to sweep his disgracefully homophobic past under the carpet.

No-one has said he should sweep anything under a carpet. And it is not untrue that much of gay culture focuses on youth and body fascism, although this may have been manipulated for the purposes of the speech.

But I doubt anyone would have known who Mr Blunt was, let alone the words of his speeches in Parliament.

“it is not untrue that much of gay culture focuses on youth and body fascism, although this may have been manipulated for the purposes of the speech.”

Youth and body fascism? What does that have to do with anything?

Blunt equated homosexuality with paedophilia and tried to use this incitment to hatred to deny people their rights and their dignity?

That is the most irresponsible and toxically homophobic statement that he could have made. The most rabid homophobes use the ‘gay people are after your children’ arguement. It is utterly unacceptable and the most slanderous and dangerous type of homophobic bigotry.

He has NOT apologised for it.

Until he has offered a full, unreserved and sincere apology for his homophobic bigotry then he deserves the same compassion as he showed the gay community while he was still deceiving his wife, children and constituency while pretending to be straight.

That’s an entirely reasonable position I feel.

just because someone is gay does not mean they are automatically welcomed and embraced when they come out. His bigotry needs to be atoned for!

“It is clear that there is a majority in the House to equalise the age of consent at 16. I agree with the view that, even if one disapproves of homosexual practice, we should ideally not be using the criminal law to make a judgment on it. I subscribe to the liberal position that people should be free to behave as they wish, as long as that does not impact on the freedom of others…

“While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people’s choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality—nor should we pretend that they are… In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person’s life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.

“It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth. [HON. MEMBERS: “Shame!”] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but I do not intend to run away from the difficult issues. My conclusion is that we have a duty to protect boys of 16 and 17 from exploitation by men of 21 and over.

“Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and other hon. Members, I voted four years ago for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Hon. Members are being asked further to reduce the age of consent to 16. It is my view that soon we shall be asked to vote for a reduction to 14—a point which was touched on by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), among others. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did not want marches by organisations such as OutRage! In Paris yesterday, 20,000 people marched for civil marriage for homosexual couples and for the legal right to adopt children. This is a further undermining of family life, which has been and will continue to be the basis of our society for years to come…”

“… in law, we should tolerate people’s choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality—nor should we pretend that they are… In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person’s life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.”

I had no strong feelings about Blunt before, but on reading this poisonous twaddle it seems to me he epitomises the self-loathing homosexual. It’s hardly surprising people are so contemptuous of him. It will be very interesting indeed to see if he has even the marginal grace to retract any of it.

As for his ‘duty’ to ‘protect’ boys of 16 and 17 from men of 21 or more, I think that speaks more for his obsessions than anything else.

Perhaphs he may now do things for Gay prisoners and accept that homosexuality does exist inside penal establishments and also make safe sex mor easily accessable, along with the fact that people in prisons straight on the outside or not DO, and WILL have sex whilst inside.

> I had no strong feelings about Blunt before, but on reading this poisonous twaddle it seems to me he epitomises the self-loathing homosexual.

Well of course. He has been in the closet for the previous fifty years of his life. And no doubt he felt that he had managed to choose heterosexuality, hence his remarks. For him, he probably felt as if he was speaking from experience.

Given that he has managed to come out despite the inevitable train-wreck that this will cause with respect to his marriage and possibly the relationship with his two children, he ought to be afforded support.

It is easy for anyone of us to condemn. It is harder to offer support in the face of previous wrongs. Where possible, it is better to extend a hand than the finger.

“It is easy for anyone of us to condemn. It is harder to offer support in the face of previous wrongs. Where possible, it is better to extend a hand than the finger.”

That is very true, de Villiers. However, it would be easier to be sympathetic if there was even the slightest acknowledgment of, or regret expressed for, his former ‘wrongs’ – of which there has been none yet, as far as I know.

PinkNews covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the UK and worldwide. Founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community, we cover politics to theology in an intelligent manner.